Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

[Big C]

gibbs is like that english guy on south park and brunell is like mrs garrison

[TheMalcolmConnection]

HAHA. How true.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

I've had a raging clue for more than 4 hours ... should I consult my doctor?

[Big C]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I've had a raging clue for more than 4 hours ... should I consult my doctor?

your flesh rocket should have been ready for lift off hours ago...

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I don't see Campbell starting, but I can envision him playing if we are losing and Brunell aggravates his ribs. I know Campbell is the #3 QB, but maybe Gibbs will decide to use him after he practiced with the 1st team offense.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't see Campbell starting, but I can envision him playing if we are losing and Brunell aggravates his ribs. I know Campbell is the #3 QB, but maybe Gibbs will decide to use him after he practiced with the 1st team offense.

I was goign to saw that if Brunell istn pefect, campbell comes in. But they you got me thinking, how pissed would you be if Brunell does bad, or gets hurt, and then they put in todd collins....

[The Zimmermans]

Eli manning's QB rating is lower than David Carr's, does that make carr better than manning. Carr got benched for Rosenfels. Brunell has had a pretty weak season. I think a good stat would be to check his first downs per completion.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

Eli manning's QB rating is lower than David Carr's, does that make carr better than manning. Carr got benched for Rosenfels. Brunell has had a pretty weak season. I think a good stat would be to check his first downs per completion.

QB Rating is a crappy stat, but what it does is shows you very generally how good a QB has performed this season. It will tell you that Brunell is better than Bledsoe...and so will every other stat.

The reason that first downs per completion doesn't exist as a stat is because it has no correllation to successful offense or wins or whatnot. I think you mean first downs per attempt, but even then, you have to account for the fact that not every pass is designed to get the first down every time its run.

What they should do is keep a stat on 3rd/4th downs that is first downs per attempt. Of course, this is already a big section of FO's DVOA ratings, in which we rank quite highly.

[That Guy]

i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.

the offense is hurting the defense gtripp, even parcells has said that. I know you love brunell, but you keep throwing up stats that were mainly made in garbage time after the game was already lost as though they mattered.

I mean, i know you love stats, but do you actually see all those 5 yard dump offs when we need 10 yards? do you see him refusing to ever throw over the middle? do you see him NEVER going deep? there's a reason he's not throwing interceptions, and it's cause he seemed to be more concerned with finding a backup job for next year than trying to win.

are you actually pissed because our offense, which is a vast improvement over the last two seasons...

what f'ing planet are you living on?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.

This is true, there is no foregone conclusion until you get another guy in there, but this is always true in every situation.

I fall in the stick with whats working, change what isn't department.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.

the offense is hurting the defense gtripp, even parcells has said that. I know you love brunell, but you keep throwing up stats that were mainly made in garbage time after the game was already lost as though they mattered.

I mean, i know you love stats, but do you actually see all those 5 yard dump offs when we need 10 yards? do you see him refusing to ever throw over the middle? do you see him NEVER going deep? there's a reason he's not throwing interceptions, and it's cause he seemed to be more concerned with finding a backup job for next year than trying to win.



what f'ing planet are you living on?

OK, statless arguement for a second, because I know you actually understand FO and what they do, and trust thier work.

Do I see all those 5 yard dumpoffs? Yes. Do they irritate me, because I know what Brunell and this offense could be capable of? Yes. Do I dwell on them or blame conservative playcalling as the basis for our losing even though that same playcalling is what is making this offense improve? No I do not. I do not expect perfection, and I take the bad with the good.

For those who don't follow:

Good-Offense is significantly better than previous years

Bad-In rare situations, playcalling/3rd down check down philosophy is more questionable than in previous years

I don't even begin to see how someone could say the offense is hurting the defense under the conditions. I mean, I'll watch the O get the ball in horrible field position after a rare defensive stops. I'll watch them put some stuff together, move the ball 30-40 yards. Near midfield, I see the drive stall. Holding or maybe a sack, or even sometimes the dreaded check down. We punt, Frost pins them inside the 20. And then I watch the opposing offense convert 3rd down, after 3rd down, after 3rd down. And all of a sudden, they are in field goal range. Don't believe me? Don't like statistics? That's cool, just go back and read any game thread from one of our losses. People comment on 3rd down conversions by the opponent all the time. It's frusterating as hell. The offense, quite frequently puts the D in ideal field position, virtually never turning the ball over, and very rarely does the D ever capitalize. Thats not the offense hurting the defense. I've can remember one pass broken up in 7 games by this D (Springs against Indy).

I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.

I've said before that you are a very valuable poster and have defended your arguments well, but are you trying to act as a counterweight to the rabid Brunell haters by refusing to concede that he is less than good?

Brunell's greatest virtue is his greatest vice. Brunell is smart enough not to throw careless picks, but he's also so risk-averse that he NEVER takes any chances. Brunell is the anti-Ramsey; whereas Ramsey took too many risks, Brunell takes none. Brunell rarely throws over the middle or deep, he goes for those leftovers (e.g. back in the flat). You simply cannot expect to survive on a dink-and-dunk passing offense; teams, even great ones, cannot CONSISTENTLY sustain 16 play drives.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I've said before that you are a very valuable poster and have defended your arguments well, but are you trying to act as a counterweight to the rabid Brunell haters by refusing to concede that he is less than good?

Brunell's greatest virtue is his greatest vice. Brunell is smart enough not to throw careless picks, but he's also so risk-averse that he NEVER takes any chances. Brunell is the anti-Ramsey; whereas Ramsey took too many risks, Brunell takes none. Brunell rarely throws over the middle or deep, he goes for those leftovers (e.g. back in the flat). You simply cannot expect to survive on a dink-and-dunk passing offense; teams, even great ones, cannot CONSISTENTLY sustain 16 play drives.

I'm trying to defend my understanding of our struggles against other arguements that directly contradict what I understand. If I don't defend myself, it would be assumed that I have given up my stance, which I have had no reason to do.

Now that you mention it, Brunell is like the anti-Ramsey. I think it's possible, like you point out, that what Brunell does to keep his INT totals low will kill some drives because of throws he doesnt make. People think this arguement holds against mine because I have a perception of perfection with Mark Brunell. That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't think he has played as well as his stats indicate. That would be an MVP sort of season. Obviously his numbers are skewed by the offense he plays in and the situations hes been in. But to say that what he's done for this team isn't good at all is to look all logic and reasoning right in the face and saying go f yourself.

But no, he absoultely should not be replaced if the goal is to win ballgames. And I do believe that people are entitled to their opinion. And going with Campbell at this point is a very valid option. He's young and he's the future. But I am gradually getting tired of the "he will be a spark for us", and "brunell doesnt care if we win or lose", and "his stats look really good, but hes still one of the 5 worst Qbs in the NFL" and other subjective/assinine statement. It's just obvious to me that many people who rose to the "Anyone but Brunell" level of thought only arrived there because they wanted to. Objective thinking says Brunell isn't a problem. Subjective thinkings can say whatever you want it to say, and you'll be right 100% of the time.

The only reason to play Jason Campbell at this point is to prepare for the future. Chad Pennington and Philp Rivers have proven that good QBs do not need to struggle through rookie slumps on the field. Both have been playing at a high level since their first start which happened for each in their 3rd season. So you aren't retarding Campbell's development by not playing him now. And yeah, theres a chance that Campbell could be better than Brunell right now. But given his "slow learner" label, not a very good one. To rectify this season means you leave the offense alone, and get the D ready to dominate.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But no, he absoultely should not be replaced if the goal is to win ballgames. And I do believe that people are entitled to their opinion. And going with Campbell at this point is a very valid option. He's young and he's the future. But I am gradually getting tired of the "he will be a spark for us", and "brunell doesnt care if we win or lose", and "his stats look really good, but hes still one of the 5 worst Qbs in the NFL" and other subjective/assinine statement. It's just obvious to me that many people who rose to the "Anyone but Brunell" level of thought only arrived there because they wanted to. Objective thinking says Brunell isn't a problem. Subjective thinkings can say whatever you want it to say, and you'll be right 100% of the time.

The underlying assumption in every argument clamoring for Brunell's head is that either Campbell is better, or at least not as bad as Brunell.

The first argument is preposterous given that we haven't seen Campbell actually play anything approaching significant time against a first team defense and with the first team offense. Saying that he'll definitely be better is just a bunch of unfounded hope and optimism.

Anyone arguing that Campbell couldn't possibly be as bad as Brunell hasn't seen a lot of inexperienced QBs play. Alex Smith was absolutely horrible last year when he started. Imagine a game where Campbell tosses 3 or 4 picks, gets sacked a half dozen times and fumbles a few snaps. Trust me folks, it can get a whole hell of a lot worse than Brunell.

Like GTripp said, right now Brunell is the best proven player at QB to win ballgames. I can certainly see the side of the argument to start Campbell and just let him "learn by doing" and find out if he's the real deal. At the same time, from a coaching perspective, you keep trying to win games until you're mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, no matter how long of a shot it is. Once you're eliminated, then it's time to start thinking about giving the new guy a shot.

The eternal optimists expect to see Campbell jump in, miraculously take over the team, throw like Peyton Manning and whisk all of D.C. to years and years of Lombardi trophies.

It's far more likely and realistic that if/when Campbell starts this season or the next, it will probably get a lot worse before it gets better.

Remember, it's always darkest right before it goes pitch black.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

OK, statless arguement for a second, because I know you actually understand FO and what they do, and trust thier work.

Do I see all those 5 yard dumpoffs? Yes. Do they irritate me, because I know what Brunell and this offense could be capable of? Yes. Do I dwell on them or blame conservative playcalling as the basis for our losing even though that same playcalling is what is making this offense improve? No I do not. I do not expect perfection, and I take the bad with the good.

For those who don't follow:

Good-Offense is significantly better than previous years

Bad-In rare situations, playcalling/3rd down check down philosophy is more questionable than in previous years

I don't even begin to see how someone could say the offense is hurting the defense under the conditions. I mean, I'll watch the O get the ball in horrible field position after a rare defensive stops. I'll watch them put some stuff together, move the ball 30-40 yards. Near midfield, I see the drive stall. Holding or maybe a sack, or even sometimes the dreaded check down. We punt, Frost pins them inside the 20. And then I watch the opposing offense convert 3rd down, after 3rd down, after 3rd down. And all of a sudden, they are in field goal range. Don't believe me? Don't like statistics? That's cool, just go back and read any game thread from one of our losses. People comment on 3rd down conversions by the opponent all the time. It's frusterating as hell. The offense, quite frequently puts the D in ideal field position, virtually never turning the ball over, and very rarely does the D ever capitalize. Thats not the offense hurting the defense. I've can remember one pass broken up in 7 games by this D (Springs against Indy).

I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.

I'm with GTripp on the Brunell situation. I don't think anyone here is arguing Brunell is the second coming of Joe Montana, but he isn't the team's primary problem right now.

What I really question isn't that Brunell is throwing to the checkdown receivers, but that those guys are running 3 yard deep patterns when it's 3rd and 10. I don't know the stats, but that's got to be a pretty low percentage play when you throw for 3 or 4 yards and expect the receiver to make up the rest on 3rd down. Something seems fundamentally flawed in the play calling or game plan when you're consistently short time and again.

I think fans get frusterated and pin the blame on the QB when the play isn't flashy enough. "He's not throwing downfield enough" blah blah blah. To be honest Brunell could be hurting us a LOT more if he were forcing the ball downfield and racking up INTs. Conservative play is probably the best way to go for a lot of QBs, but the fans hate it because it's not real fun to watch. Being careful with the ball is a GOOD thing.

It just blows my mind that people can bitch about Brunell to no end and I guess completely miss some of the glaring problems with the D, coaching and playcalling.